memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Shore Leave Planet
Editing Needed "The latter adaptation refers to the planet upon saying that a party had by the Enterprise's bridge crew (under the influence of love potion crystals) was insisted by some of the celebrators as being even better than their recent stay on the planet." is a very awkwardly worded sentence, and it's not the only one. Some judicious editing is required. Amusement Park planet At what point was this planet "officially" called the Amusement Park planet? It seems that in it was actually given the name shore leave planet, which seems to be more accurate, in terms of a Trek-writer given name than this name, which I suspect came from the original author, which in turn came from the Star Trek Encyclopedia. --Alan del Beccio 02:27, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT) :The Animated Series, according to Gene Roddenberry, is NOT canon (with the exception of ). Why? It was probably an arbitrary choice on his part. But, he also may have felt that TAS just didn't live up to its potential. However, I'm of the opinion that since quality is subjective in this case, let's just declare TAS an parallel universe, a whole other quantum reality. It exists, but not in the same universe as canon Star Trek.--Mike Nobody 06:43, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) That argument is irrelevant here, it was long ago decided that is as canon as the next episode of DS9 or ENT. (Hence why we have an entire section devoted to it, just like we to to the rest of the series'). --Alan del Beccio 06:45, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC) In my research two "unofficial" names crop up in use by the crew regarding the identification of this planet. Amusement planet was mentioned in passing after comparing the function of the planet to that of an old amusement park in , however, in the latter Kirk stated in his log that they "set course for the so-called "Shore Leave Planet"." Unlike the name "Amusement Park planet", the two above referenced names should supercede in the naming this article rather than a "fan-made" name. --Alan del Beccio 00:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ::I moved this again, to the capitalized version of its former title. If it's a proper name, which this seems to be, it should be capitalized throughout. -- Cid Highwind 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC) :::Well, I have changed all the links, but now I have second thoughts. It depends on if he means the "so called Shore Leave planet", or "the so called Shore Leave Planet". maybe it should be lowercase planet. It's not as much a proper name as it is a nickname, or maybe nickname as an adjective. I'm not sure. There was a crazy web of redirects for this though, one article linked to the caretaker through two different redirects. At least all the links are pointing straight to the articles now. --Bp 10:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ::I believe that, if something is introduced as "so-called", then what follows is a proper name/title. From the wording of that sentence, I don't believe that the name can really be just "Shore Leave" with a "planet" dangling at the end of it for no good reason. A comparable statement would be "the so-called 'Washington Monument'" - that surely isn't a monument called "Washington" :) -- Cid Highwind 10:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC) :::That makes sense, I guess. --Bp 11:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Well, I'm not sure what grammar school the crackpot closed captioning writers for the TAS DVD's went to but it is written there as: "Therefore we have set course for the so-called "shore-leave planet," located in the Omicron Delta Region." Neither seem to follow our naming styles. --Alan del Beccio 00:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Removed "May have been"s. --LauraCC (talk) 20:51, August 5, 2016 (UTC)